BC/AD/BCE/CE
Gracious Rebel
Shipmate
Today's sermon, based on lectionary readings, contained several references to dates of historical events eg destruction of the temple. Each time a date was mentioned our minister used the wording 'in the Common Era' or alternatively 'before the Common Era'. Now I know these terms are the present politically correct way to refer to what we used to call BC and AD, but nevertheless it grated on me. In the context of Christian worship surely it not inappropriate to use the versions that relate to Christ? Or am I out of touch?
Comments
I rarely use *any* of those terms. Part of that is because I was taught (evidently wrongly) that the common era started at a particular time. A brain search isn't retrieving that, right now. But I think it was supposed to be 70 AD, when the 2nd Temple was destroyed. Which, by the AD system, would make CE dates 70 years off.
And I usually don't mention anything far enough back that there'd be any confusion about whether it was AD/CE or BC/BCE.
So, while 70 AD = CE may not be accurate, it's still in my head. I've thought about more inclusive calendars, from time to time. Theoretically, yes, a universally inclusive calendar would probably be a good thing--though various cultures and religions have their own.
I do realize very much that horrible things have been and are being done in the name of Jesus--over and over and over, world without end, amen. The AD calendar is based on the perceived time of Jesus' birth. Many/most people in the world aren't Christians, or religious at all. So the AD calendar probably isn't fair to them. And it's a relic of a time when "Christianity" ruled much of the world, had a lot of power, and made the rules.
I also know that switching between Julian and Gregorian calendars (and I never remember which is which) spawned a whole lot of trouble.
So, on this particular Sunday morning, that's about as far as I get.
Great idea!
That said, CE and BCE are themselves a bit of a fudge - we haven't changed the dating system, only what we call it. And I'm not totally sure what is "common" about the common era that BCE time was lacking. To me, spelling everything out as "in the common era" or "before the common era" in a sermon intended for a Christian audience seems to highlight this artificiality.
"Common" as in "shared", I assume, referring to the current dating system used internationally.
I use CE and BCE for the same reason. I understand the Common Era to refer to the period after the point in time that has been historically and culturally acknowledged as the date of the birth of Christ, whatever else we might know today about the inaccuracy of the methodology originally used to calculate that. It refers to a commonly understood period without making any statement about the point in time.
This allows me to refer to events "Before the Common Era" without feeling that I sound ridiculous in a way that I simply cannot when discussing the birth of Christ possibly happening Before Christ.
I understand all that, and the way in much the same point has been made by others. An essential part of my post was in asking why the birth of Christ be a determining event - after all, a majority of the world's population is not Christian.
On this point, isn't it simply about what is globally convenient? At the point where it became useful for the entire planet to use the same dating system, the dominant economies happened to come from a Christian culture, and so the calendar they used has been adopted. It doesn't say anything about whether these economies are or should be dominant today.
And there's an exact parallel in how we state time. When Great Britain found it useful for the entire island to use the same timing system, time as recorded in the dominant city of the period was adopted (with a slight adjustment to use time as recorded at Greenwich's Royal Observatory, a little bit east of London). When the world found a need to have a common timing system, the UK (and its empire?) was a dominant economy so it was practical to further adopt the Greenwich system. In turn, this says nothing about whether the UK is or should be a dominant economy today.
In both cases, it would be possible to adopt a different calendar or clock. But there's no particular benefit to doing so, and (surely) substantial drawbacks were there to be a change made, so we continue with what has now been established.
But, perhaps a picky point, whose "comon era" is it? We still imply we're talking about pre and post Jesus, no? Would not the Japanese date events based on who was Emperor? or other groups of people have dating schemes based on their cultural history? So, I stay with what the hearers of my words will know and not ignore my point while they mentally sort out the timing just right.
Common Era is our own dating system with a name change to pretend it's universal.
Because the calendar was made by Christians and the numbering system well in place before ideas like wondering what other people might want even surfaced.
Exactly, and then someone decided that using the old naming was offensive to non-Christians. So new names were given but based on the same event.
And there you have it, folks.
BTW Vulgar Era was really used at one time
But then why not use CE/BCE? It's not scraping over backwards to put "CE" instead of "AD", and if there are some people who are helped by it (whyever that may be), why not?
That there were in fact many other continents and countries; as well as hundreds of other religions (as we Monty Python folk say ) "don't enter into it".
I am fluent in 2 calendars (and have more than a passing acquaintance with 2 others while thinking "Oh, yes, of course" on a fair numbr of "high days and holy days" of many more religions when I see pictures in The Guardian!). I think the idea of a common calendar is only logical. Perhaps it's a pity it's devolved onto the Christian one. It's certainly cultural imperialism, but there you go. It's mostly necessary for business (transactions or appointments) anyway. If you want to talk about a wedding day or a baby's birthday - use whatever calendar you feel like with your like-minded or broad-minded friends
If it DOES help somebody, sure. But I wonder whether it matters to people as much as some assume. I don't find it offensive when someone uses the Islamic or Jewish calendar, or follows textual practices that reference their own faith (for example, writing G-D instead of "God")--so why get het up about this minor thing? It's not even written out. I'm sorry, but I just think we've got better things to do than police every scrap of language for possible offenses. The behaviors promoted by the person currently in the White House come to mind.
No they've just been using it.
I sincerely hope they had no idea, because if that was deliberate, that was a shitty thing to do to a young kid.
Completely agree, but I was taken with a tshirt I saw a while ago:
"Being straight isn't normal. It's common."
Wish I'd had the courage to buy it.
I tend to stick to the BC/AD system because BCE/CE dates tend to fuzz into each other after a while thus hindering comprehension.
I don’t understand this anecdote. What’s CE dating?
My personal opinion of that horrid incident was that the parents should have taught the children the calendar "everyone" uses but they wanted to be pure/extremist.
It was horrible incident and I have never forgotten it. Both sides were at fault - the parents for not making sure the children could "function" in an essentially secular environment and the people who used the situation to pick on the wee girl and to gossip about it for days afterwards.
And of course I am a "more inclusive than thou" type of Guardian reading, GIN drinking, over-sensitive, etc, etc type myself ...